over whether the united states would pay its bills or not. who benefited from that fiasco? i've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between main street and wall street, but the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad. it seems to get worse every year. watch president obama deliver this year's address. our preview program starts live tuesday night at 8:00 eastern

with the president at 9:00. followed by the response from republican conference chair kathy mcmorris-rogers. and your reaction by phone, facebook, and twitter. the state of the union tuesday night live on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. the consumers electronic association held the annual innovation policy summit in las vegas in early january. up next a panel discussion on government's role on innovation and business start-up. you hear from entrepreneurs from silicon valley, new york city, and around the country on issues from immigration to education and patent reforms. this is about an hour. okay. i think folks are trickling in. we'll get started so we don't go over. welcome, everyone, to our start-up policy and innovation panel. i'm really excited about the panel. i didn't -- i wasn't trying to make my

panelists nervous. i did mention when i tweeted about the panel mark favored it. so we feel like the pressure is on. and also, that this is a big sort of real sill yent discussion that is interesting. what we're going hope to accomplish with the panel has ramifications for all kinds of businesses whether they're, you know, new small brick and mortar or tech businesses. hopefully it's a wide-ranging conversation. i'm looking forward to it. welcome, pam. what i'm going to do. i love to put a face to the name. i'm going have each panelist introduce himself or herself. and give two minutes and i'll start with you. >> hi, everybody. my name is collar are -- clara. we are an urban venture accelerator. our mission to solve urban problems. we work with companies like work hands which is a blue collar-linked in type of service

or handup which is a crowd funding tool for the homeless. we bring them to the office space for four months at the time. we offer funding, structured curriculum and everything they need to help the businesses grow in scale to cities across the u.s. >> hi. founder of ceo of a company called ario. a online television platform. >> david. i live in las vegas 17 years. have a small technology company here. we have built seven platforms. exited out of a few, still running two. currently ceo and founder of it's on me. which is a mobile gifting platform. trying to support community through technology. so we i low global revenue to be spent locally. so, you know, we allow people to break down the barrier of geographic call reaming.

if you want to buy your buddy a dry in new york you can do so. we support local community at full retail price. >> i'm the ceo and founder of company called stop that. i'm currently working on my fourth start-up venture called roar. which is a tablet optimized search engine. i'm the managing director at upstart which is a start-up accelerator for women-lead founders based in memphis, tennessee. >> hi. i'm jay schwartz the cofounder and ceo of general assembly. it is a global school for technology, business, and design. our vision is to build a global community of individuals and power to pursue work they love. we do it through three main ways. best in class training in practical skills and help people be competitive in technology, business, and design. provide access to opportunities that give people confidence skills and freedom in one's

career. we do in a context of a network of practitioners, entrepreneurs and other participates. we are all mutually vested in each other's success. today we've had over 80,000 students come to one of our eight campuses around the world, new york, london, boston, d.c., how long -- hong kong and sydney. we are growing even more next year and the year after that. we have lots of exciting programs and web development in u.s. design, product management, data science, digital marketing, and we also offer a lot of those same programs for fortune 500 companies as well as an internal capability building tool. hi. josh. thank you for spending part of your day with us here. i'm wearing two hats. a vc based in san francisco.

before that a start-up founder and a political -- [inaudible] but i'm one of the folks who help cofund an organization. a non-profit that focuses on -- [inaudible] with about 500 -- [inaudible] even here in nevada. >> i want to remind if you you're going to tweet please free to use the #. but also seen it up here. ips2014. because these are policy. i want to start on that note,

actually with asking each of you to answer the one question. i think the different ways that each of you answered this question will probably inform the conversation after that. so kick it off. what is, from your individual perspective, the single most powerful thing the government could do to encourage innovation? i'll start with you clara. >> keep an open mind. be creative and entrepreneurial. instead of saying no, try to think about, you know, the idea in how it can could probablily work in your community. an example i might throw out is rock ford, illinois. about a year ago, the mayor approached et sy, online marketplace for the crafts and the trades. basically rock ford had very high unemployment but also had a history of manufacturing. and the mayor was basically how can we think of interesting way to repurpose the skills that our communities already has. they created a program alongside

et sy to basically teach members of the community how to build a business and market the skills they have and et sei sellers. it's unusual in and not something you might think of right off the bat. i wouldn't throw that out there. sorry the question. >> what, in your opinion, is the single most powerful thing the government can do to encourage innovation at the start-up level. >> i'm not sure they can do much, but i think probably a little bit around the idea of bandwidth, to me. because especially, you know, any time you look at companies like ours or other technology companies, good internet access is probably and cheap internet access is probably the best thing they can do. >> not much. >> you know. >> silicon valley has shown us there's no shortage of great

ideas or great people to create those ideas, so there's two things. financial policy and regulation -- regulatory policy. and if they can get one of them right, it would be beneficial to us. but, you know, through, you know, if we -- 99% of all businesses are killed through a lack of capital. so, you know, the government can put some policies in place to, you know, make it so we don't get sued by patent trolls and raise money. all things. they have to focus on financial policy and regulatory policy. >> his expectations are low. >> i would have to pick financial policy. >> okay. >> thing growing entrepreneurs is something that the government can assist with. getting involved with start-ups and vc and funding it's complicated. however, empowering entrepreneurship, teaching individuals how to take their

ideas to the next level, how to implement them, eliminate the risk so they can go to vc and apply for various accelerator programs. i think that the government can help by creating non-profits providing grants to local communities and local governments and so individual cities and towns and states can actually create workshops and programs and environments where people with ideas can come in, learn, and get access not necessarily to financial resources, but to mentors and to team members. there's a lot of those happening organically in high-growth potential cities. however, there's a lot of places in the united states where it isn't happening. it's hard get the resources to put together some of the start-up and even, you know, workshop to say what is the lean start-up process. what is -- how do i put a team together. who coi need to work with. i think those fundamental skill

sets. that sort of education creating environments for that is definitely something that the government could help with. i'm kind i have a microlevel and step away and let the local governments kind of create their own environment to do that. and partnership along the way. that would be valuable. i would love to see that happening. >> yeah. i think you talk about government you really have to think about it as a bunch of different type of government. right. you have cities, you have states, you have national government, you have different policy organizations as part of that. there's a lot of stakeholders and interest differents. i think the level i the way they can help drive innovation are totally different. you know, we've been lucky enough to meet with, you know, tons of different government leaders at the different levels, you know, we find out tow get a ga to come to their town, you know, i've had meetings with, you know, crazy, you know, how they can have the next facebook happen in kiev.

right. and it's pretty funny; right. everybody wants to be the next silicon valley. i tell them silicon valley is a 20th century concept. it's the future is about -- this is this is decentrlobaliede ing to be the hubs and nd so, you know, al over from our perspective at ga we think talent is one of the biggest driver of the clustering. we think that, you know, local and state government especially and the federal government can do the most by helping foster this and getting out of the way is making sure you're doing the enacting policies at all different levels to make sure your town or senate is a great home and magnet for great talent. and that also involves, like, making sure people the retrained for the 21st century and have the skills needed for the industries that need those employees, and so, you know, one of general assembly main purpose is to do that for a silicon

city. it's one of our second city after new york was not san francisco. it was london. and that was partly to send a message it was about a global phenomena we were trying to be part of. and we thought there are individuals who are overeducate and under employed and all of these cities around the world. >> so i think my fellow panelists made a lot of good points, but i would say as an overaveraging theme is smart regulation. protect the citizens and as a result there's naturally an inclination to understand the contour of the law and what it means. what we try to do as part of engine is really help to make the connection between the latest developments and the stuff you're seeing on the show floor here. and what that means for regulatory policy that we have in place. and what we might have in the future. what we're seeing is our issues becoming main stream. it used to be the things we care about as start-up and things we start up as set of entrepreneurs primarily we talk about this we

are talking about i.t. little bit less bio and sort of clean tech. a lot more i.t. we can go the internet. well, that presented a whole new set of issues that we spent a lot of time thinking about. you have already seen copyright. there are more coming on other topics like patents that transcend industries but first and foremost, it seems like access to capital that came up already. it's talent, we believe immigration plays a large role in that. we also think things like taxation policy and how we're thinking of greater reforms to things like digital privacy and digital due process. they all really matter. what you're going hear in me going through a lit any is really the general notion of government matters. it's here. it's not going away. government is fundamentally good, i think a lot of people want to argue. and subsequently it's just groups working hand and hand trying to understand how can we

take protective measures for citizens while at the same time allowing them to have the best services possible through innovation and invention. and consequently that's where we're headed. i think we'll spend a little bit of time here talking about the patents and immigration, which are two very real issues on the table at both program and state leaflets. we are seeing smart regulation being talked about. we are seeing progress toward good policy put in place. >> i feel like you are wiggling. >> we work with a lot of specifically urban focus entrepreneurs. they're looking to solve problems identified by municipality as priorities. but they've been unsuccessful in solving on their own. i think a lot of people are in to the why much promoting government as, you know, the sort of font of great idea for entrepreneurs. we haven't found that to be the case where they axel at least for the entrepreneurs we work with are serves as a pr group

for start-up. the cheap innovation officers, chief technology officers gate lot of hype, i think, right now and ultimately aren't the ones that are identifying new capital sources for start-up. they aren't the ones connecting them to, like, important, you know, policy regulators who can help them navigate that complicated space. what they are good at is sending tweets. and i don't mean to say that in a negative way. i mean, they add a lot of legitimacy with people coming up with unusual business model. we have a start-up handup which is doing crowd funding for homelessness. it's definitely a way out there idea. but they were really early on and built a great relationship with san francisco who is kind of like the homeless. and got him on board and so when people in the community started asking what is the city doing to create creatively about solving the problemmings. i'm sure that you heard san francisco has problem.

he's able to point toward them. they were a young company got at lough interesting partnership out of that sort of advocate. >> i felt like it's important to say that it isn't -- one of the nations -- notions i find a lot of entrepreneurs will accidentally adhere to is the idea of government needs to get out of the way. government can't have a role here it can't help only hurt. i believe that's naive. we helped early in bringing years to d.c. and what you end up finding is a lot of users are technology. a lot of them adherence. they understand it. they just don't understand yet what regulations are in place that are keeping the growth from occurring. and it's hard to see what you dmoant or what doesn't exist yet. so at the same time, you kind of

play with examples. you can see where companies that are as fist candidated as possible like the ride sharing offering have engaged more municipality earlier on and try to change the contour of the regulatory space. the same goes for housing. it comes up frequently. well, at the same time i'll point to jake and ga and cofounders. they are good at coming in to cities and being great ambassadors for what is going on in certainly in san francisco and that really helps where you find that instead of political officials worrying about the regulation. they're instead worrying about trying to understand what doors can they open that aren't already open. >> i don't think you can ignore government. government is a stakeholder that is at the the table and it has to be part of your plan. and especially when you're going after entrenched monopolistic tie of industries. usher is fighting municipal by

new nice pal area. it's super fun. that's disruption is all about. taking, these, like, deeply entrenched monopoly and making them up. they havish vested tons of money in governmental regulations and you have to be spoiling for a fight a little bit. in that way. i think, i mean, travis has been awesome and crazy at doing that. it's been incredibly successful. i think you're going see a lot more of that happen. and the interesting thing, like, at the start-up having to be that mart about your public policy. i have a head of public policy on our team, right. you know, -- >> how would are you? >> flee years old; right. it's no start-up should have a head of public policy.

you have to have people on your side at the governmental level. it's sort of the problem. we know the knowledge economy is fundamentally driven by some sort of scientific creativity in some way shape or form. we curl -- culturally don't encourage that.

they ask for forgiveness and then got created the infrastructure to be able to create these businesses and break the rules to about kuwaited model. we're a mobile gifting platform. uber was breaking, you know, the taxi cab authorities. they have so much relationships like you said and power it's hard to overcome them.

i can't buy someone at 25 -- that law is antiquated in our eye. someone in new york bought someone in l.a. a drink. he never touched it. it's a digital gift cards. there a lot of policies in place that are -- that need to be it's a problem we're struggling with everywhere regardless whether you're in san francisco or in memphis, tennessee. finding these talented individuals who can actually build the applications, put together the system, create the hardware, there's a lack -- there's a serious lack. not just in term of understanding as well. i think it has to be start --

this is a place that the government can step in and say, you know, at the high school level why is this not part of the curriculum? why isn't it 100% requirement you need to memorize the periodic table but there's no fundamental understanding what html are. i think we also need to think about what are we doing here to foster innovation and create entrepreneurs that can actually drive the changes forward.

i would like to teach kids how to program and code and be more engineering mind set where if they created financial opportunities for investors and people to be able to create more start-ups and be more entrepreneurial who is going to teach more kids how to be an engineer. i started a start-up have access to capital can teach millions of people how to code and create an app or a program that teaches that forget the school system. people that find opportunity and take advantage of the opportunity for themselves. we're not acritded. because of that we don't -- people can't take massive disiebzed loans in order take the program.

they are signing up in droves because we are providing a real ori. we talk about a pace of change that is fast and accelerating every day and this infrastructure that is the government is not really designed to deal in that kind of timeline. they just were not set up for that; right. they barely kept up with, like, electricity as part of the acceleration of time, you know, and so as you think of -- it is about understanding that you have this -- you have this stakeholder that is really slow and lummerring. i'm curious why everyone is citing usher. they made a name for themselves

beinged aer have czarrial. i might hold up a list or -- i know is mentioned and obviously they've had fraught relationship. but it's taken upon themselves. in my mind -- i use the -- they're great. but in my mind a lot of start-ups we hold up and bring in to work with our entrepreneur whether it's yelp or have taken a more collaborative approach. and obviously is a lot, like, ask for forgiveness and doing direct consumer. you need them to advocate on your behalf. there other example of start-up that have done a better job of collaborating and been more successful because of it. >> those are all different negotiations strategies whether you're going go aggressive or be collaborative. what you need to have happen. >> that's actually -- that seems to be the central question of the panel; right. which is do you work with government and them initially and collaborate from the get go or do you, you know, take a batter iing ram to the door.

once you're in you start negotiating. >>. >> for asking for permission. >> right. >> it's absolutely not. that would be death most start-up companies to ask for permission. >> i'll take the dissending view there. what i found and it's part of why engine was created. so full disclosure there. it was to help start-ups get in those doors much earlier in their life psych the. if you do engage early, it's not like there's a desire among congressional staff and elective to regulate businesses. because fundament anily they crazy they create jobs and they do and the stats bear themselves out time and time again. engine has an amazing economic staff. they produced that work and it's used all the time. subsequently when you explain this is what we're trying to build and create opportunity. this is what our product is going to look like, you do find it willingness to engage. i think there are many good examples we don't talk about as

much. we don't talk about how square put in a lot of effort to put in taxi cabs to see how it goes. i would say that extends to the mobile payment industry broadly. i think usher, they are an engine member. i think they get a bad rap because some of their geographic entry they might not have handled as well. there are for every one i would say there's three geography they went to that went smoothly. that said one of the fun things i got today when i was a horrible line for the shuttle i was like i want usher. i went on the usher app. you can't here is why. and they gave me a little educational page on why there was regulation here locally that was causing them some heart ache. that felt fair. it felt educational. that felt like they have tried through the system in a way that

i have a user wasn't exposed to. but now they are letting me know i couldn't have their service. and it was fairly lightweight. so in small defense of usher. they have learned a lot and taught a lot of other companies how you can handle the process better. to the main point i think jake is going to add on. the more you engage the better result you are likely to have. being dismissive is only going to yield -- let's say an adversarial process that yields terrible dividends on both sides. >> i think i agree with that. i would add we have the biggest gift start-ups have been given is that in government circles at automatic level city all the way to federal there's a conventional wisdom that start-up and innovation is the path forward in the economy and going save the country. >> it is true. it is true. but also, it has become a

dogmatic belief. when means when you come in and have a conversation that says i'm trying to do something different this is interesting. here is a potential press release for you how you're supporting it. they will listen. if feels like that's something you can use greatly for your benefit if you understand the framework that's what people are working in. that's note to say there entrenched interests that will -- you'll have individuals . >> like the taxi limousine commission. >> or, you know, a good friend of mine had a start-up that was trying to give -- it was called ivy bridge. it was a bridge from essentially to the place and the community college program with a two-year online program that got you directly to an four-year university. the students loved it fop get accredited they had to partner with a non-profit accredited university in ohio. the accreditation body which is

not a government body but again, a commission of entrenched interests. which is the trade association of incumbents looked at that and decided with no warning with no communication to shut the entire start-up down. the start-up raised $30 million had, you know, 200 employees. it went from potentially having evaluation of above $100 million to zero in a week. and without any governmental oversight, without anything it was able to do that. there are the nightmare scenarios as an investor and entrepreneur you have to be aware of that, and you also have know not everyone is going to be on your side. you have to play for survival. a lot of times it involves getting advocate inside government and being involved realistic about who is going before you and against you. >> say it's not usually that at least in our experience that regulators are closed minded. it's usually they're trying to fit a square peg no a round

hole. it's like the wrong regulation or a lot of ambiguity. i had a friend try fog pay her transient occupancy tax for the unit in new york, and she called mane was like i don't know how to fill out the tax form. they are asking for the name of my hotel. obviously it makes no sense. and it just that, you know, there needs to be some efforten the part of both start-up but regulators to recognize it's certain things need to be updated and i don't think anyone would deny offers a lot to lot of different type of community. it's a question of how you accommodate that. it's not like people don't want to pay their taxes. she literally didn't know how. that definitely needs to be taken in to consideration. talent and capital as they

regular -- relate to regulations. that is there some merit to the idea that government can help talent. i heard you david, say, you know, let's start-up to do that. that sounds like a recipe for an achievement gap. at home talents since rightly point out immigration reform alone won't come close. create policy that fostered entrepreneur ship. it if a local investors who is investing in real estate or investing in a bar or restaurant or some high-risk opportunity had some tax incentive based off of government regulation that allowed him to invest in a start-up in that community that would create jobs and an opportunity for that community or 20 different start-up in that

community and those tax incentives were there where the policies were there for that person to be able to do so. all things that start, you know, a downtown project or, you know, salt lake or memphis or all the different places to allow people who are in those communities who are thought leaders and influencers in the communities now to start being more part of creating what about your employs and the employees you need are lots of engineers. who will work for them, i guess is the oh sort of side that. >> i think the talent goes where the opportunity is, you know, if their kids are going getting degrees but the opportunity as soon as they aggravated graduate go to san francisco. it's local government that needs to create opportunity for the kids to stay here.

especially if they get loans in nevada to go to school in nevada and going san francisco to be able to pay off the loans. or bring to -- >> i think that innovation in general is not bopped by geography. there are people -- i live in san francisco. i go memphis once a month to bring the resources that we have in abundance in san francisco and create a bridge in to memphis. the resources are not just there in other part of the country. there are hubs and areas that have investment and accelerators and mentors and huge one as welt. there's a big draw for other companies this is a whole new

thing in memphis. the industry has been it's a new sort of conversation that is happening. and it's a place where government can come in and create some sort of different incentive to try to create, you know, the stream line from the investment going to different areas maybe investing outside your comfort zone out of strisk and out of boston, austin, whenever, chicago. and also, like i said initially putting the government resource grant in to local community and say build the ecosystem. let the united states and america be the innovation not

just the firm and already created start-up that build entrepreneurship at the ground level in communities such as it doesn't exist. i think that's definitely 100% an area that government can get involved in one last point is that there are so many talented entrepreneurs that have dream and vision. they can go to an vc and angle and go to an accelerator and there's a calculated risk that those entities are willing to take to invest and give them resources. have a dream for a company but they don't know where to start. i think that's where the government can create the local ink baiters, acceleratedders with that i can build entrepreneurship across the

country from the ground up. the u.s. government has done a great job of creating a positive environment. so, you know, a lot of people don't remember or recall when the government changes regulation that pension funds could invest in venture. gave rise to scale venture capital. and, you know, and it grows amount of misuse of the regulations unintended consequences. capital gains personally i think absolutely ridiculous. the logic doesn't add up. i think the government has done a tremendous amount of incentive perspective. we keep coming back to there's no talent.

there's a shortage -- [laughter] but i think the challenge is, you know, with all due respect capitalistic system governmental institutions create scale impact. and i come from an institutional model where in the nifnt -- ninth grade you picked your discipline. you have to axel or die. >> even when we get to the full scale we're going to be in the tens of thousand of real employable people. i think hopefully we'll have impact beyond that. i would say that when you talk about talent i think what new york city has done well in the bloomberg administration. it comes down three things they pushed hard for. broadband, obviously, right. it's like you go in another country and you're like how embarrassing. you don't realize how bad the u.s. broadband infrastructure is. they have done a lot around real estate. it's a huge problem for real

estate. they have done a fostering that and talent. runs buses to m.i.t. to convince more kids who graduate to come to new york. in a lot of ways it's about more liquidity for the ecosystem. the raw input they can use to create whatever they're going create. they're not picking winners or hold anybody's hand. they're trying to create more -- give more input to the system and give a helping hand. i think one of the biggest thing at the federal government has done in the last year is obamacare for fostering innovation. there's two major things. all the kids under 26 can be on their parent's health care plan and start a business. that's huge. there's health exchange. you can buy without a group. the things enables the kind of liquidity and talent pool that,

like, leads to all sort of interesting organizations. health care is one of them. education is much longer battle at the k through 12 level. we talk about school district that is fragmented. each of them is governed separately and the state level before you get to the federal level. it's not an easy battle. a lot of this innovation is going to come outside the system. it's going to come through innovative ways. the good news we live in a society when a pocket is better you can buy it. that's a beautiful thing. >> access to funding and the amount of talent available varies depending on the sector. we work with urban impact entrepreneur. we get two-thirds of the applicant pool from not the bay area. we have 4% acceptance rate. we have a huge number of applicants. and they come to us because

we're the only one groups interested in early stage seed funding. we found that even after normalizing for demographic factor less than half is likely more traditional peers to secure feeding at an early stage. it's a huge disparity and a lot of it has to do with the fact that many are working on physical products or services. a bike share or in a new economy business. they are a little bit more red sent to take an in term of where it's directed. it's not necessarily spread evenly across the ecosystem. as a community we think about the kinds of entrepreneurs that you're looking to encourage i think that taking in to consideration the kinds of investors that you're partnering with and the kind of priority you want to push there is important as well.

>> i think there's a story worth sharing. it has to do with the fact that so much engineering talent and innovations have come from public universities and land grant universities. and for years, they were just amazing success and great innovations and educating grad students who went out and continued to innovate and invent even within private industry. what we found as of late are those same institutions many of the same have set up licensing components that have really quashed the ability for talent there to continue to want to invest within the university system. we forget that the university of illinois deserves a ton of credit for the brower is and the internet as it were. but when you start looking at the pace and rate of innovation it starts changing dramatically as of late. that's why we talk about --

it's wonky but terrorist government again even in the education space i use it as a segue to talk about the fact we are educating a lot of technical talent in the same public institutions. we're just not educating people who have the ability to stay in this country. we hand them a diploma and ask them to leave. they have been problematic and highly political. but not a lot of way. coming off of that, we have to remember that in a lot of these metros againlet talk about where we are right now in nevada. we know that 4.3 jobs are created every time you hire somebody in the high-tech sector. those are workers who are everything from a busboy to a local crap. you have a lot of generate roles and responsibilities and

abilities far beyond just computer science. there's a short term and long-term. we need immigration reform and need it now. there's a ton of talent we're sending out of the country and wants to come to the country that can't. we need to think about what public education means and how we can understand that government fundamentally a at the core of our publishing education system. how does the industry work with the government to help it better adapt to market conditions. one of the comfortable examples. let's let the market determine commands and people will chase the opportunity. i think there's personally a lot of truth to that. we know life isn't that simple and there are certain things

like public education specifically set up to perhaps avoid short term market situations, and so we need to -- how do we ensure they continue to occur and allow them to trickle beyond specific -- and find that rising tides flow. >> i'm proud of us we haven't talked about it so far. there's only 10 minute left. i feel like we should. in the scheme of talent and capital where does the issue lie? how salient, relevant, how terrifying for the panel and the start-up community in general? >> everyone is looking at me. >> we are. >> when i talk to entrepreneurs there are three things that come

up. one is -- it used to be talent and access to capital. what we have seen over the past couple of years. they are coming up time and time again. what contributed to a lot of that is the trolls have final found a business model. it's a viable business model. the quick summary they tent to be nonpracticing entities that acquire the intellectual property of a defunk company. they are very broad, not applied women. they have built a business out of sending demand letters to companies. from the fortune 100 to small mom and pop. they hit everyone from retailers to merchants on main street. say we know you have a ander that allow you to e-mail yourself the scanned document. you violated it.

we know you're offering free wi-fi. we know you're violating our right. what tends to happen is they will sell. this is extortion. it's become an ever increasing problem. one of the worst examples. maybe it's not the worst. there are bad ones coming out every day. but thousand of demand letters were sent and often times when you do settle you have a considerablety clause associated with it. you can't talk about it and share. it becomes hard to know the thousand of the letters went out. maybe everybody settled for $100 but they add up. how powerful is that? do you find -- do you think it's a deterrent

the rest of the panel to an entrepreneur and how urgent is it? i think you were going to start say something. i haven't paid attention to the issue. i know, a little bit about litigation. [laughter] my experience is the structure problem i think is face is the court system not necessarily just patent laws. the problem is most of us cannot afford will run you $10, $15 million. not very many companies can afford to do that. i haven't paid attention to the issue. in a way i probably should.

they don't think about that. they try to figure out how to hire somebody and other local regulations. to be honest the mairmingtty of the regulations are municipal or regional. they're not thinking about things like pa end. it doesn't mean it's not important and don't get slapped in the face at some point with it. they're not thinking about it. it's not deterring them from starting a company. maybe growing the company. but not starting it. [inaudible conversations] >> it's something i worry about with the overall exposure. maybe my partner and i are too wonky. we watch what is the pa end filing to see with a we need to avoid or be careful. it's particularly freaky. sector does matter to some extent. it hits our users it's freaky. that is not just about our company. it's about all the millions of people using the products. if the government created better

opportunity for businesses to protect themselves from the there would be a way for them to fight back. you have to think that you have a plan maybe a ten-year plan to work for $150,000 a year. you save up a certain amount of money and open up a bakery or coffee shop. you may get sued or cease and assist. basically a shake down to be paid off. they don't actually want to go through. it's a shakedown. if the government creates a way for you to fight back businesses can group together or have a method to be able to point out they are overreaching, too broad, and that removed. it would change the shift. it's everybody. snot just in the tech industry that have to fight the fight.

everybody has to wake up, e-mail, it effects everyone. the hockey stick ramp of how aggressive they are getting and getting away with it has to be stopped. it needs everybody's support. i can speak to patent. i work on algorithm. when you are building as the technology company you're building it because you think it's a good sugars. you're not necessarily thinking i wonder if somebody else created it. you're coming up typically with your own. you figure you're the first one writing it. typically it's not until later stage you backtrack and figure out are there other people doing it. if they are, unless they have a big symbol next to their, you know, title of whatever their product is called. you don't necessarily think about it until that stage you have a shared technology.

i have a huge advocate for open source. i think open source code is one of the most amazing incredible opportunities question leverage as developers and technologist building web applications. it's a huge benefit. i believe in bat -- patented things. for technology in this particular field, like, let's we innovate off of each other! stop that was four square for the web. we're taking one idea and adding elements to it and kind of doing different interrations. i think it's stops innovation and -- but, like, it stops it dead when you say i created this. no one else can create anything having to do with it. i know, it doesn't necessarily speak to the policy i need to change or not change, but i would love everyone to take a step back and say do i need to patent it. can it be open source and

everybody benefit and use equally and all innovate as a society. i think we start taking steps in that direction, maybe the whole problem will be solved! [laughter] if you look at the stars of -- stats of the people who fight the controls and litigate that 92% are successful in beating the litigation. on both sides it tells you something. the people are overreaching and the patents issued for the decades have been too broad there needs to be reform on entrepreneurs and business owners large and small to have a road map and method to be able to i read somewhere that the go

on the iphone and refresh the action it was a patented action. but it became part of atm user experience where users on mobile devices learned that when you pull down you're pulling down to refresh. to me that doesn't feel like something that should have been patented, you know, user experience. it created a lot of controversy. in general i'm pushing and advocating take a second look at what you're filing for patents on. it can be creating a better innovation culture as a whole creating the user experience for different devices. [inaudible] [laughter] we have five minutes left. i would love to get some questions from the audience. i don't know if there's a microphone. i'll try to repeat -- is there a microphone.

yes. sit tight. it's coming around. companies lost -- [inaudible] $2.9 billion lost in direct litigation costs. [inaudible] disproportional target. it's a real problem -- [inaudible conversations] >> right. there is -- i understand that there's a panel tomorrow on just that. no, no, please. please, please. exactly. but it is. it is you could argue the overarching theme. we have a question here. >> great panel. one other policies topic that didn't come up. i have seen academic studies that shown bankruptcy as far as how -- [inaudible] fail investment get going again. oftentimes start-up founders try

once, twice, three times before they get the major company that scales up to 1,000 x of whatever started. in europe one of the big problems it takes six to ten years to fully danger bankruptcy. it leaves a stain on more reputation. i was wondering your thought about -- i'm not saying you went bankrupt but i was wondering your policy. it seems one of the area of financial policy is particularly important to start-ups. >> yeah. one of the benefits you don't have anyone else's money to lose. that makes it a little bit easier. in silicon valley in particular there's a notion that, you know, i failed five times.

go me. i'm strong. there's kind of a idealism. you keep going and trying. i think it's important. very few founders get it right the first time. i know, i didn't. i probably started ten companies. you get them off the ground and some work and some don't. the beauty you can interrate quickly and figure out what you need to do better the next time. there's that culture of innovation in term of how policy affects that, we've been in a position where we are to be pivot and take the resources we had from one bench around and fifth to another one so it wasn't necessarily bankrupt situation. i'm not sure if anyone can speak to that in particular. i love the system you can keep going. i think in a funding perspective getting access to that capital is really important to have runway i need wroom 0 get

there. you -- mogd right away. what happens to the entrepreneurs. those companies never get started. that's a huge shame. i hope that answers your question a little bit. i'm speaking out of turn here. ian hathaway probably has the most knowledge on business failure and start-up sector. it's not just outside the u.s. it's also very strong in the united states why you'll find failures, for example, in the bay area of san francisco being quite frequent. far lower rates outside of that national panacea is a market i've been interested in. it's interesting to see the failure rate tend to be lower and survival rates tend to be a

lot greater. there's a regional component. you want to -- what are the actual cultural drivers why you see these various rates, and have that help you determine fiscal policy and at least your analysis of that policy. one of the things we look to look at it's about capital. and i know of the one of the scary thing about putting capital to the european market is talent attraction and turnover and change over is difficult. ..

and the only way that's going to happen is when they look at employment law and regulation there. >> ipods again failed at the question and answer panel because my panels are too interesting and i've gotten a hug but we will be up here for a couple of minutes so you can come up here and ask a question in person. thank you for the fascinating discussion and enjoy the rest of ces. [applause] ♪ ♪

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] last night we showed you the first part of a recent forum on women and poverty. this event features the sharp report which looked at the subject. here's a brief preview. >> i think we are desperate to talk about it. i think we are dying to talk about these sorts of things. at every single income level men say they want to be better fathers and more involved and their families and they get no support for that. they get no support not only

from, no support institutionally but they also often don't get support from other men. so when guys say they want to take parental leave and they say they want -- that they have to be home with their families and as we heard this morning from nancy pelosi that they want to be home with their older parent. they get no support. they get you are not cut committed to your career or you will never make partner. i am saying they get it from men so breaking or interacting or beginning to figure out ways that men can support other men taking these opportunities, this is what they say they want. both women and men say they want pretty much the same thing.

>> some of you have been marching for over 40 years and have endured many setbacks including the recent expansion of abortion coverage and obamacare. but it is important now more

than ever that we remain strong and stand together. we cannot allow the opponents of life to continually weaken the moral fabric of our country. they need to know and they need to understand that we will continue to march. we will continue to educate. we will continue to advocate and we will continue to fight for the unborn. [applause] >> despite the fact that president obama is using stealth deception in the course of power of the state to promote abortion violence the pro-life movement is alive and well and making serious significasignifica nt and sustained progress.

earlier this month amtrak president and ceo joseph boardman spoke at the national press club in washington discussing transportation investmeninvestmen t along with current and future amtrak operations. in his remarks mr. boardman called the highway trust fund financially unviable and

stressed the need for a 21st century surface transportation program. in 2013 amtrak carried a record number 31.6 million passengers with ridership in the northeast corridor having its second-best year ever. this is just under an hour. speak that afternoon and welcome to the national press club. my name is angela greiling keane i'm a reporter for "bloomberg news" record transportation in the 106th president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future for our programming with events such as those while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club please visit our web site at www.press.org. to donate to programs offered to the public current national press club journalism institute please visit

press.org{/

[applause] larry willis secretary-treasurer of the transportation trades department of the afl-cio. [applause] william cassidy senior editor of the journal of commerce. [applause] add hamburger president and ceo of the association of american row roads. [applause] alison fitzgerald, finance investigative reporter at the center for public integrity in the chairwoman of the dash press club. [applause] stepping over our speaker for just a moment the president and member of the speakers committee who organize today's lunch. thank you. [applause] jim weinstein executive director of new jersey transit. [applause] herb jackson washington correspondent for the bergen

record. [applause] michael ess editor-in-chief of aol travel. [applause] and christopher chambers, professor of media studies at georgetown university. [applause] our guest today is not shy about criticizing the hand that feeds him. [laughter] saying federal spending on rail and other transportation needs is insufficient to the point that we are quote getting our assets alive. his appointment has been present and officer of amtrak and since 2008. during his tenure amtrak ridership has risen to record 31.2 million in the 2012th is clear. mr. boardman told congress last year that an fy12 amtrak covered

80% of its operating costs and gain passengers along all perhaps even on the long-distance trains that traditionally have been the company's bottom line and that the bush administration tried to cut. the 2013 brookingbrooking s institution reports that amtrak ridership increase 55% since 1997 more than double the growth realized by the domestic aviation sector. nowhere is that more clear than the busy northeast corridor which is grabbed market share from our airline shuttles but all is not rosy with passengers. i'm a good day they may complain about spotty wi-fi and on a bad day such as earlier this week they may be stranded for hours when the equipment fails due to weather. prior to to his appointment as the head of amtrak mr. boardman was the administrator of the federal railroad of administration agency that regulates rail safety for amtrak and all of the rovers operating in the u.s..

before the fra mr. boardman served as commissioner of the new york state department of transportation beginning in 1997 where he was the organization's longest-serving commissioner. he served in the u.s. air force in vietnam beginning in 1968. after returning stateside he enrolled at cornell university where he earned exactly the type of degree you would expect for someone bound to be one of america's transportation leadere in agricultural economics. [laughter] mr. boardman is a vocal advocate of positive tray control and technology has been and is for his potential to prevent train crashes. he has said that congress the federal rover that administration in the entire passenger and freight rail industry must redouble their commitment providing funding and implementing ptc as soon as possible. he is also a proponent of improving transportation infrastructure is saying that besides funding for rail infrastructure the federal government must increase capital

investment for a new air traffic control system, rebuild bridges and highways improve waterways and many other types of critical infrastructure such as our electric, water and sewage systems and communications systems. he will talk about that thing today in a speech titled bringing transportation funding into the 21st century. please join me now and giving a warm national press club welcome to amtrak president and ceo, joseph boardman. [applause] >> thank you angela. i'm really pleased to be here today with all of my friends as i look across the audience here and i would like to make sure i introduce one other person. he is the person or place me as the administrator for the federal railroad administration. thanks for being here today. [applause] so angela i started the first part of the speech telling you

about the fact that at 17 i joined the air force and celebrated my birthday 18 years old by having a drink and then later when i turn 21 i was able to float. [laughter] that is all reversed today, isn't it collects what i really want to talk about is three weeks ago i became 63 years old and i told one of my good friends here, jim weinsteiweinstei n that i'm now an old man. he said no, 65 is not old. he said i'm 67 and i am not old. [laughter] so that is reversing as well in this station and there are other things that need to start, that we need to start thinking about. in the most recent discussions that we really had about the future of surface transportation

in america it's focused on what is called the highway trust fund and its authorization or reauthorization. i think that's unfortunate because the highway trust fund folks is dead. it's financially unviable but perhaps more importantly i believe it's built on an outmoded vision for mobility in the united states. we need to be thinking about how to replace it with a surface transportation program for the 21st century. to do this when he to start out by asking ourselves what the purpose of the program should bh with it and how we will structure the program and its partnerships to produce a coherent, integrated transportation policy. i say we need to start here because when i look at today's disjointed collectiocollectio n of federal transportation programs, i can't find rational answers to these questions. and as they really say, if you don't know where you are going,

good luck getting there. tom howard the ig tells me that all the time. it's clear to me that people no longer know what they are buying when they are asked to support federal transportation investments and frankly that confusion is justified. what is it that we are out to do maintain the network, improve it, expanded? i want to talk today about what i think we should do with their federal transportation program, a little bit about how amtrak could fit into it. to start, we have to find the replace this notion of the highway program with the notion that the surface transportation program. it is not easy. we started 20 years ago with the program when we started talking about intermodal transportation. as angela said my

responsibilities in new york, when you are in every parts of new york even though you want your residence to answer the phone d.o.t. you get, highway department. because they think about it is the highway department not as a d.o.t., not for what we need to do. we need a mode intro program that provides investments for projects that deliver real results rather than projects is simply invest in the -- on the basis of a historical perspective. we need a balanced program that can provide investmeninvestmen t on any of our surface modes, highway transit or rail, freight or passenger. and it would unshackle our transportation planners are system users and other decision-makers from simply chasing mode restricted dollars and instead asked them to produce results that matter to the nation.

and what are those results? a new focus on truly national priorities that must be the guiding principle of these federal surface transportation programs. the overarching objective of our transportation policies and infrastructure investments must be our economic future because we are competing in a new global marketplace. to build the program around this goal and others worthy of federal attention we need to change the debate. as leaders, and we are, we must pay our debt to the future and focus the industry on support. not supporting, promoting economic growth. we must help keep our great country moving forward. i have been present at amtrak since november of 2008, just over five years ago and i was a young 59 then.

at that time the company with the support of their federal and state ,-com,-com ma since that time the company with a supported by federal and state programs and the women and the men that work for amtrak has achieved some impressive accomplishments. despite the recession and the slow growth of recovery from it. we have set ridership records in 10 of the last 11 years and we carry three times as many passengers between new york and washington is all the airlines put together. when was the last time you heard somebody say they just flew in on a shuttle? amtrak revenues were up 21% and angela we are now covering 89% of her operating costs instead of 88%. it's been a great time to be at amtrak. i'm happy that our growth indices continue to rise but the fact of the matter is we are constantly being asked by everyone, rural communities to

the nation's biggest cities, to deliver more and better service. state and local leaders see passenger rail as a driver of economic development and are finding ways to invest in their local train stations. many times without a city rail service are seeking to become amtrak served communities. air service is gone, bus service has gone. communities all over this country are starving for tangible transportation improvements that can meaningfully impact their lives and in many key respects, transportation has gotten worse for many americans. and more expensive and they want to see that tide and see if it will turn. this isn't an amtrak problem. it's a national problem and it's symptomatic of a declining emphasis we are putting on national connectivity in recent

decades. we have become myopic, not understanding the need for a united vision for the united states. you see, many of the same challenges in the airline business, their domestic capacity has fallen by 20% since 2005 and about half of the airline flights on routes of less than 500 miles been discontinued since 2005 and is hitting small and midsize communities hard and making it difficult for them to grow or even to do business outside of town limits. under these circumstances you might think that strengthening national connectivity between our communities and our economic centers would be a national priority. that if you thought that, you would be wrong. it's not. we are not really making the investments we need for growth and improvement. we are just barely keeping the existing system growing. amtrak, like everyone else in the transportation business, is

trying to keep pace but it's a challenge. we have to make do, cramming more and to the existing and squeezing out more old hardware and equipment. the new motors can't come fast enough it seems and missing the real growth opportunities is what happens when that occurs. this year congress and the administration will take up reauthorization of the federal funding on surface transportation. i got a somewhat unique perspective on that issue because i have seen surface transportation from almost every side. i think the only thing that may be angela left out here is i actually drove a bus and tractor-trailer in college and i have a pilot's license. [laughter] what i did begin my career in managing transportation and small cities in upstate new yord

then on my own company managed rural communities throughout the state of new york and is the state of new york commissioner of transportation i was just possible for all facets of transportation and the third largest state in the country. when i was a kid that used to be the largest population in the state but that has changed as well. my biggest responsibility was building and maintaining highways. as federal railroad ministry there was responsible for the safety of our nation's rail system for federal rail policy and for overseeing federal funding to amtrak and its president at amtrak i spent the last five years gearing out what capital investments and track needed to make to operate safely, to maintain the northeast corridor and our r. trains and stations and to meet the growing national demand for our surface, always without knowing how much money i would have the next year. and often in the current year,

to meet all those needs. these experiences have given me some perspective on the challenge of transportation policy and i would like to offer you some of my thoughts on what i have seen and what i think needs to be done. the highway trust fund was established in 1956 to pay for what was then our country's greatest single greatest transportation goal, the construction of 47,000 mile interstate highway system. it was a real vision. it was authorized in 1944 but the real genesis of the system may be that trip to white eisenhower made across the united states in 1919 with an army convoy with an average daily spittle of 9 miles an hour. the good road movement that followed that in the 20s and 30s who improve these roads but in most places they followed the trails of hunters trappers and -- made a century before.

interstate system however by contrast was a new kind of road built and financed on the chilean national scale, to take advantage of the mobility trucks and cars were able to provide after six decades of development and to promote a new kind of commerce and unprecedented scale. it was originally founded by federal appropriations and the federal gas tax which polled pulled incremental tax revenue from users do the highway trust fund to leverage massive multi-decade programs. today however the highway trust fund is dead. what we think of is the highway trust fund, the user fee funded single mode and purpose builds trust fund has not existed for many years. construction of the interstate highway system was substantially completed in 1992 and we have since expanded funding eligibility. today the highway trust fund pays mostly for maintenance of 220,000 miles of highway, less than a quarter of which are part

of the 47,000-mile highway system. local transit was made eligible for funding in 1992 but illogically inner-city public transportation is still not eligible. user fees, federal gas taxes no longer covered the costs funded by the highway trust fund. since 2008 congress has spent more to bail out the highway trust fund with general revenues than amtrak for the whole of its 42 years existence. without intervention projected deficits continue to grow for the highway trust fund. a recent study concluded the shortfall will grow from $7 billion in 2015, that's next year, to 126 billion in 2023, just eight years from now. the current authorization for surface transportation programs

a two-year stopgap law known as map-21 expires this year. giving us an opportunity to create a new framework for federal transportation investment. we need to think about it. because there are major issues coming. those shortfall numbers, 126 billion by 2023 don't even include a lot of things that america needs. for example, the recent proposal by the recent foundation to create an interstate 2.0, a system that will adjust congestion and infrastructure aids issues on the existing system would cost nearly a trillion dollars. and they think that needs to happen within the next two decades. if we treat the issue as what do we do within the existing structure we will all lose. nothing worthwhile will change. the question we as americans must answer is how do we

redefine the approach to federal transportation investment to ensure it's focused on truly national needs? how do we recapture the national vision and purpose in the interstate era? first of all as i have said, forget about the notion of the highway trust fund. the america of the future will not prosper on the backs of the best highways, airports or were a roads in and of themselves. the world's leading economy today requires a world leading transportation system. so the new trust fund must be mode neutral, transportation trust fund that strengthens the whole network and recognizes and supports the unique roles that each of our modes play in supporting interstate commerce and connectivity. second come in the context of limited revenue the trust fund

must be focused on making investments that surely national in scope and responsibility and generate policy outcomes that the nation needs. but maybe certain things that are being funded today should not or cannot be funded in the future by the federal government if they lack a specific national purpose. that is not to say they are not worthwhile. that's not enough to ask ourselves whether certain investments are worth making. that's the easy way out. the right question, the tough question is what investments or investments are the federal government responsible for? moreover, what investments is the federal government uniquely suited to provide? in my view, the fundamental purpose of federal transportation investment is to

connect this nation together and provide for interstate commerce. that was the vision of our founding fathers in the constitution. it was the vision behind the highway trust fund. it's a vision we have lost today. only the federal government can address national connectivity connectivity. only the federal government has a responsibility for providing the national perspective. these solutions should rise or fall on their merits. with every program, every investment, we must ask and answer how it provides for national connectivity. other national priorities, but how it addresses this fundamental and unique federal responsibility. we shouldn't be afraid of the notion of subsidy and anyone who knows anything about

transportation no-space subsidies ubiquitous. it's part of the business because the public at large derives benefits from a strong transportation network. and frankly it's how the national highway system was sold in 1992. the key is making those subsidies as small as necessary to deliver long-term public value. they the need to reauthorize surface transportation programs and amtrak was authorization provides an opportunity for us to ask what world do we want the federal government to play in funding transportation infrastructure investment and how can we formulate national policies and achieve the outcomes we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century economy? if national outcomes are our goal, i believe that investments in amtrak have a home in a redefined well targeted surface transportation program. but that is up to the

policymakers to decide. this is not about what's best for amtrak. some may think redefining our perch at transportation investment may produce winners and losers but that is the wrong way to think about it. the right way to think about transportation is as a tool for producing national outcomes, and to forget we make important choices. choices that go deeper than continuing to do something because that's the way we have always done it. like all of you i have a lot of concerns about the course we are on. i have seen how governments ability to make targeted effective investment has declined. other people have noticed that too and their confidence in government have declined right along with it. the people out there, customers, constituents, citizens, taxpayers, want us to deliver the relevant infrastructure solutions. we are a mixed group but we

can't be a mixed up group. we have a challenge to make, one that we can't afford to dodge and neglect. we have to improve our reality rather than just tried to explain our reality. we are facing a real challenge in the bankruptcy of the highway trust fund is just the tip of the iceberg. this is not insoluble problem however if we are willing to work together to solve it. together we must devise a forum where the right debate can be framed. it won't be easy but if we strive in good faith we can find a way through to a solution that will give america what it needs and help us restore the trust that must return to an appropriate level of investment in our nations infrastructure needs. we who have spent a lifetime in this business of this, a better

and a stronger system to the generation behind us. we owe a debt forward. i believe we can do it and we must. thank you. [applause] eight thank you. former transportation secretary ray lahood earlier this week called for raising the gas tax by 10 cents a gallon as well as indexing the gas tax to inflation and of course that's not the issue of the race when he was still transportation secretary. within the context of that conversation this week what do you think needs to be done in terms of the highway trust fund as a pot of money? doesn't need to be larger? >> i knew the question would come because steve told me it would come.

so when i thought about it i really think where we are today one of the things i talk about in my speech was the reason foundation sought this out to be done with automatic tolling out to be looked at but that is not the real question here and i try to put that in the speech. the real question here is what are our priorities going to be? how are we going to decide what to do for the future. the highway trust fund shouldn't be retested. it should have a surface transportation trust fund and talk about us being a global competitor for the future. we hear all blocked and i will start answering in a minute that we hear a lot of criticism about not having high-speed rail for not having this or not having that in the nation. but we don't do anything about it except talk about it. we need to improve our reality here and find a solution to a

global competitiveness for transportation. >> so is increasing the revenue part of the solution? is increasing the revenue either through gas tax or some other means part of the solution? the interestingly i think that's already happening because the states are meeting to make changes and they are out there. they are borrowing in finding solutions to the problem because the leadership is not coming from the federal government. if the federal government understood that its responsibility was to connect this nation together first and foremost the connectivity of this nation was what drove the interstate highway system. the connectivity of our small towns to the big talents is absolutely critical in this nation. states are raising issues that both gas taxes and tolls and doing public-private partnerships. should the federal government should be following the lead of

the state? >> the federal government did that in the -- they required amtrak -- amtrak to go out and tell the states that they had to have a greater role in how they would finance state corridors and that's okay. their offense of suggestions that you could do that on a national basis on intercity passenger rail but that's not okay because that is our federal responsibility. that's something we have do we have united states four. >> how a handicap the prospects of a surface transportation highway bill this year as well as the chances for an amtrak reauthorization and do you see those two bills is linked or can they move independent of each other? >> obviously i see them as links because that is what i want to see, is a surface transportation program. i think it took time to get too 21. it wasn't just a quick analysis

in two years but you know for amtrak two years would be a major improvement if you don't know what you're going to have next year but not only do you not know what you're going cap year but you don't know what you're going to have this year it's hard to do a multi-, a multifaceted major program which is what is needed. we have a commission now on the northeast corridor. we have to find a work that needs to be done. we can build a tunnel in three months. you can't rebuild the bridge. you can't do the things that we are being asked to do with the commitment level we are receiving so i think you need to bring it all together and bring this mode neutral solution and we will rank well in that area. highways are in portland. aviation is important. our electrical grid is important. our water is important. those things that we as a nation need to get done, we need to get it done.

[applause] >> why shouldn't the most compete for funding? your railroad ceo calling for month -- more money for airplanes and highways also. why do that? >> because we become stronger in the globe if we work together and balance our transportation system so that it does bring us better economic development and connects our people. >> another that amtrak has increased covering its operating cost 89% from 88%. do you see that rising higher and if so how high can it go? can i go to 100? speak it depends on who writes the next speech. no, i am kidding. i really am kidding about that. i do see in increasing by the same time what we are going to see relatively soon here is the

investments in we are making in new equipment will cost us money which means some of the revenues that we have today will be used to pay off those debts cannot be used to give back to the federal government. >> is there a goal of getting to 100%? >> is there a goal to get to 100% for the whole system of highways and aviation for just amtrak? are we singling that back out again here? i think that we are and can be profitable operating where we have enough ridership and where we can price their product. we can price their product today and i know that because chris told me that and we ought to have a way to deal for students, have a deal for students. in my discussion with him i began to explain to him that we are full incapacity so the megabuses of the world and the bus systems that provide those

services to the students is an important part of the balance here. those buses, and i was in the bus business, are subsidized even if they don't give a government check. every time they used interstate highway system, every time they use what's out there already for police and i have the best police chief and deputy right here at the back of the room, the communities pay for those. we pay for those costs as a railroad. speak up in the current strained fiscal environment in washington what ideas do you propose to reduce amtrak's opera and costs and the questioner asks to what extent would you will come competitive contracting as a way to accomplish that? >> well yesterday understand we got a new contractor up in boston. there was a decision to move to a new commuter rail operator. one may move from that was amtrak a few years ago. we see that there is a competitive environment out

there in the commuter rail business and we have stepped back substantially from that except for where it really makes sense for amtrak to operate where it owns the rail track, for example in maryland and connecticut, the service that we provide for commuter rail and there are a few other places they really want amtrak they are. we can't operate as cheaply as a company coming in like a french company that came in here because they set up a small company where the liability is exactly the same and the cost isn't exactly the same. in those areas where make sense, they are going to compete with us. in other areas you are not going to have that competition because of the huge investments that it's going to take and the liability that is out there that we have to cover.

speaking of the strained fiscal climate in washington d.o.t. corporations run out in six days. paint for us to picture what happens with amtrak if that happens and one step beyond that what happens if there is another extended government shutdown? >> we lost ridership when there was a government shutdown so we don't want that to happen. we do provide quite a bit of ridership out there. i don't think that's going to happen. i think that is part of the malaise that the federal level of the lack of commitment to what we need to get done for our country. i wasn't kidding when i said that i think we all more debt forward than we really owe back in this nation because we have benefited greatly those of us better in this age category from the investments that have been made in this country. when i lived in washington d.c. in 1966 and 1977 there was only one way i could get to rome new

york on the interstate highway. i had to go through cities and now that doesn't really happen anywhere in this nation. the investments were made. we are gaining and have gained from those investments. but we need for the future is not to worry about those things so much because what they really need to worry about is where are their kids and grandkids going to be if we don't make investments for the future that will allow them to be part of this global economy? we will be the offshore people. >> is questioner says elon musk a former speaker have proposed new means of transportation. are you working with ham or other visionaries? >> i would like to get the existing trains replaced so that they don't break down and they have a high level of reliability so that the job that we really do well gets done even better. it's important to have these

ideas, i understand that and i am not being critical of them but there's a huge cost in a huge change in culture that had to occur for that. we don't have the culture today to deliver even a single surface transportation program that we could then have decisions made on a mode neutral basis. speaking of replacements, what is the prognosis for a new time all onto the hudson river that could take traffic off of the george washington bridge and maybe you want to talk about new jersey. [laughter] >> i promised my friend jen jim that would not come up. but i knew angela would get to it somehow. the prognosis is it's got to be done. i mean if sandy taught us nothing else except the fact that when you have water in the

two tamils that you have buchanan to run trains and you can't move people. and we need greater redundancy. if we are going to remain the financial capital of the world in new york city, we had better start being more serious about doing that, building those time all of building the gateway program, making sure there is space for trains that keep coming from his railroad into new york. they just keep coming. there is no question today that we have to make these investments. we have got to find solutions. part of the solution is the federal government. parts. >> governor christie is talking a lot about transportation this week. it is now a good time to get them on board for the tunnel project collects. >> pass. [laughter] [applause]

>> passengers this week in the northeast were either stuck on trains for hours or limited from taking trips because they are trains were canceled due to the weather. a lot of problems with overhead wires. can you talk about what was different this time, cold weather happens in january and what happened and what does that tell us about our infrastructure needs? >> i think it wasn't just the northeast so that everybody understands. we have a huge number of problems in the midwest. we had one of her trains, train six run into a 20-foot snow drifts and got stuck in there and the train that went to rescue them got stuck in another snowdrift earlier than that. we depended upon our very good partners from the railroads and they did help us out. they moved us substantially. we received tons of compliments about our conductors.

i will mention her name and i know she will be red-faced, andrea. i will just mention her first name, the conductor on trains six absolutely was an outstanding person to deliver for her customers. the interesting thing is i started to get questions, what about this train that got stuck for 24 hours? you are getting people telling you how well you are handling these problems the people that are actually there but the way that it's reported it sounds like we are having other major problems. we have women and men of this company that deliver every single day and while they are not perfect, they are the ones that are responsible for the success we have had. it's the weather that happens that has been happening this past couple of weeks that you really get to know who is worth their salt and we have a lot of them that are. in terms of the problem on the northeast corridor, there has been a growing, what we would

call a hardware incidence or breakdowns happening more and more every year. the cat mary, the wire and most of the wider problems south of new york because we are north of new york was built in relatively new builds in the 90s and is captain nouri instead of the way it used to be tightened on the south end which was built back in the 30s. it's getting too old. so we are having more and more breakdowns. there needs to be a rebuild of the entire system. >> you have a price tag for that? us. [laughter] >> what is that? >> rather than try to give it to you i will provide that. i don't have all of the numbers in my head that it's not cheap. >> airlines have a legal obligation to accommodate

displaced passengers when there are flights canceled due to equipment problems. amtrak doesn't have a comparable mandate. should there be mandate for rail passengers like that? >> we do try to take care of our customers when something like that happens. we do have a system in place that does that and i think what you were asking is whether there should be a mandate or not. some would think so, others might not but one of the things we did do was try to get people as early and noticed that we could during the storm so that they would know that they couldn't travel. even then sometimes are trains are on the tracks for a couple of days before we know that the storm is going to be that bad. another one of questions that you have to field if you put a train out there is why did you about there? it left a couple of days and there wasn't a problem expected to that point. it's a different than a flight

that hops over for a couple of hours then it is for handling train traffic. speaking of airlines they have earned extra cash by charging for seats with more legroom for checking luggage and i can go on and on. airlines also have multiple service classes and charger large premium with classes. with amtrak trains being crowded and often sold out as a something amtrak is considering for revenue? >> we are looking at all those kinds of things. we are looking at how they might be old to raise revenues. in some of the discussions before we came in here we talked about there was a desire by a lot of people for us to reduce fares than to have the fairs where they are or increase them. we surveyed and most of what's happening on the revenue management level just like the other lines do every day.

we are looking for the opportunity to increase our revenues and that is why you see an increase of 21% are part of the reason why you see that increase in revenue because we are managing a revenues differently today than we have ever managed them in the past. we are looking at those other opportunities as well. we have 55 new package cars coming on board here in the next year or so-and-so we get the requests for handling different objects. there's a bill in congress for us to be handling at this point in time. there are some things that are coming forward for the future. we are looking at what the elasticity ratios might be that we could increase our revenues to our customers and seeing what they would be interested in paying so yeah those are the kinds of things we are looking at. be a couple of questions about amtrak customer service. this question. this question to. this questioner asked what steps

you planning to address in amtrak's inconsistent levels of customer service characterizing it as sometimes wonderful and sometimes bureaucratic. >> well i think everybody in this business has that problem to some extent and that is not an excuse. we are doing something about that. we are looking at how do we provide the training, how do we provide incentives for our employees that what you really want in any kind of the service businesses you really want those who gain from the service itself and they are really somebody who really wants to provide service to begin with. we are also trying to figure out how to select the right people and hire the right people up front to make sure that we are providing a service. the other thing that we have found at amtrak, it brings up really a larger issue and that

is i was thinking that you are saying you were at the 106th president of the national press club that i was the 106th president of amtrak. [laughter] because that is sort of what has happened at amtrak. for 42 years i am now the second longest-serving amtrak president at a little over five years with graham being the longest one. you think about the average change that's occurring for the flavor of the month. one of the issues that i had to look at when i first got there was how do i really get folks who understand that we want a safe railroad, that we want good customer service, that we want a better bottom line? so there are all sorts of things that have to change. some of them are business processes. some of them are the trust that you need with the men and women that you work with and that you want them to be happy about.

how do you give good customer service if you are not giving good employee relations, if you are not delivering to your folks do things in the values that are out there that are necessary so we needed a strategic plan to establish those values, to find the things that we knew were important including forgiveness, including understanding that somebody might need that forgiveness to move on to the next level. and that has helped us. but we haven't gotten the consistency we would like it for customer service. we are still working on it. >> what about food? a questioner who calls himself or herself a foodie and a frequent amtrak passenger says the quality of food on amtrak is quote subpar at best. the questionnaire asks how tough is it to serve a decent sandwich

that doesn't look like it would shrink wrapped for days before we serve him what amtrak's plans to improve quality? >> i live in rome new york and it takes a long time on amtrak to go from rome new york to washington and that is how i traveled generally from washington to new york and from new york to albany usually an xterra and albany so i can try to rome. there is hardly any service west of albany. i usually eat on the train. ie hamburgers and i like their hot dogs. i like amtrak food and i like it on the long-distance trains. it's generally good. some of this new panini or whatever you call it, it sounds to me like that might be woody's talking about. i'm okay with that going myself. [laughter] we do have people that are focused on trying to improve

food and we would like to make sure that happens. >> what about skycaps? this questioner calls them wonderful but says they must because late and high-cost operation where competitors don't have them. how long can skycaps be justified at amtrak? sphere will tell you the red caps in washington get their work out. they finally learned that not everybody is coming in the front door wants to go to amtrak. some want to go upstairs to the busses and it wasn't part of the deal. we have a lot of people that absolutely need help with the amount of baggage and what they want to do to get on the trains. we see it as an important part of customer service on the train. some of you have been marching for over 40 years and have endured many setbacks, including the recent expansion of abortion coverage in obamacare.

but it is important more now than ever that we remained strong and stand together. we cannot allow the opponents of life to continually weaken the moral fabric of our country. they need to know and they need to understand that we will continue to march. we will continue to educate. we will continue to abdicate and we will continue to fight for the unborn. [applause] >> despite the fact that president obama is using self-deception and their coercive power of the state to promote abortion violence, the pro-life movement is alive and well and making serious significant and sustained progress.

..

>> [ applause ] >> thank you, guys.